Plaintiff
Eugene McCain brings this action for damages under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, claiming violations of his rights under the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments stemming from two seizures
he suffered while awaiting trial in the St. Clair County
Jail. (See Dkt. # 4.) Before the court are two
motions for summary judgment: one (Dkt. # 63) filed by
Defendants Kimberly King, Brandy Scheimen, and Amanda Bishop,
all licensed practical nurses (“LPNs”)
(collectively “Defendant LPNs”); the other (Dkt.
# 65) filed by Defendants Sergeant Richard Olejnik, Deputy
Matthew Methany, Deputy Brandon Rogers, Deputy Brook Schmidt,
Deputy Ryan Kacafirek, and Deputy Richard Kaminsky
(collectively “Defendant Officers”) and St. Clair
County.[1] Defendant LPNs' motion is fully
briefed. (Dkt. ## 63, 71, 75.) Plaintiff filed a response
(Dkt. # 72) to the motion by Defendant Officers and St. Clair
County, to which those defendants replied (Dkt. # 77). The
parties then stipulated to allowing Plaintiff to file an
amended response, which he did on June 1, 2017. (Dkt. # 80.)
Defendants have declined to reply to the amended response.
After reviewing the extensive briefing, and with the benefit
of a hearing held July 12, 2017, the court will grant both
motions.

I.
BACKGROUND

The
following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. On
Saturday, March 2, 2013, Plaintiff was arrested and brought
to the St. Clair County Jail for booking. He was booked at
10:25 p.m. (Dkt. # 71-14.) Defendant Sheriff's Deputy
Methany did the intake and filled out a medical screening
form for Plaintiff. (Dkt. # 71-1, Pg. ID 1180.) On that form,
Deputy Methany noted that Plaintiff answered
“yes” to questions regarding epilepsy and seizure
disorder, noted that Plaintiff was taking Tegretol for the
condition, and that he had last taken his medication at 4
p.m. that day. (Id. at Pg. ID 1181.) Plaintiff had
his medication on him at the time he was arrested, but the
arresting officer told him he would not be able to bring it
into the jail, so he left it with his mother. (Dkt. # 65-2,
Pg. ID 738-39.)

Deputy
Methany also indicated that Plaintiff's prescription was
from “Family Pharmacy.” (Id.). In fact,
Plaintiff did not have a prescription with Family Pharmacy-
though had been filling a prescription for Tegretol at a
pharmacy called “Blue Water Pharmacy” and had
last filled a 30-day supply on January 25, 2013. (Dkt. #
65-46.)

After
filling out the intake form, Deputy Methany placed the form
in a metal bin for the medical personnel to pick up.
(Id. at Pg. ID 1185.) It was the regular practice of
the jail nurses to go down to the assessment area multiple
times per shift to pick up the medical screening forms from
this basket. (Dkt. # 71-12, Pg. ID 1464; Dkt. # 71-3, Pg. ID
1261.) The nurse would then attempt to verify the medication
by contacting the listed pharmacy. If the pharmacy verifies
the prescription, the nurse is allowed to order the
medications. (Dkt. # 65, Pg. ID 684; Dkt. # 80, Pg. ID 1820.)
Otherwise, the nurses must consult with the doctor on call to
order prescriptions, as the nurses are not allowed to
prescribe medication.

Defendant
Nurse Bishop was on duty at the time Plaintiff was booked,
working the 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift. Nurse Bishop cannot
recall the events of March 2, 2013 due to the passage of
time. (Dkt. # 65, Pg. ID 683; Dkt. # 80, Pg. ID 1820.) Nobody
involved recalls when the medical screening form was picked
up, and Nurse Bishop could not recall if she had ever seen
the form or spoken to Plaintiff (Dkt. # 65-24, Pg. ID
915-17). Nurse Bishop did not order Plaintiff's
medication before the end of her shift.

There
is no evidence that Plaintiff made any follow-up requests for
medication, submitted a medical request or “kite,
” or filed a grievance over not receiving his
medication after being placed in a holding cell. (Dkt. # 65,
Pg. ID 686; Dkt. # 80, Pg. ID 1821.) There is no evidence in
the record as to which nurse was on duty for the 7 a.m. to 7
p.m. shift the following day, March 3. Nurse Bishop again
worked the 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift from March 3 to March 4.
Plaintiff's medication was not ordered on March 3, and
the record is silent as to whether anyone attempted to verify
his medication.

At
approximately 5:30 in the morning of Monday, March 4, 2013,
Plaintiff had a seizure while in “9 cell[, ]”
which he shared with several other inmates. (See
Dkt. # 65-22.) A video of the incident depicts the activities
in the cell prior to and during the seizure. The video shows
breakfast being served to the inmates, Plaintiff taking food
from another inmate's breakfast tray, and then laying
down along with the other inmates to return to sleep.
Plaintiff then begins to seize, and once the other inmates
notice they begin banging on the glass wall of the cell. This
occurred at approximately 6:25 or 6:30 a.m.[2]

As
shown on the video and uncontested by the parties, Defendant
Deputy Rogers was the first to respond, arriving at the cell
approximately 48 seconds after the inmates began to summon
help. Defendants Deputy Kaminsky, Deputy Methany, Deputy
Kacifirek, and Sgt. Olejnik arrived shortly after to provide
assistance, as did Sgt. Labeau, who is not a defendant. (Dkt.
# 65-22, Pg. ID 985.) The cellmates were removed from the
cell less than 30 seconds later and Defendant Nurse Bishop,
summoned by Deputy Rogers, appeared slightly more than one
minute after Deputy Rogers and provides first aid to
Plaintiff. The deputies assisted with securing Plaintiff, who
was flailing his arms and legs and, when instructed by Nurse
Bishop, turned Plaintiff on his left side. (See Dkt.
# 65-22.)

After
Nurse Bishop determined that Plaintiff was able to move on
his own, open his eyes, and understand his surroundings, she
ordered that Plaintiff be placed on “30 minute
rounds” in “5 cell, ” which is a
glass-walled cell near the officer's desk in the
assessment area. (Dkt. ## 65-25, 65-49.) Nurse Bishop did not
check McCain's vitals, consult a doctor, or do anything
to expedite the process of getting Plaintiff's
anti-seizure medication. Someone-at least some evidence
suggests that it was Nurse Bishop- then ordered the
medication, and apparently signed the relevant authorization
as Dr. Stromberg, the jail doctor, who was then on vacation
and had not been consulted. (Dkt. # 71-4, Pg. ID 1309.)

An
inmate placed on 30-minute rounds is visually observed
regularly by the corrections deputies to monitor for any
distress. (Dkt. # 65-39.) Between 7:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.,
Plaintiff was observed approximately every 30 minutes by
either Deputy Shane Walker or Deputy Jonathan Lembas, who are
no longer Defendants in this action. (Dkt. # 65-50.)

Advanced
Care Pharmacy opened the prescription request at
approximately 8:54 a.m. that morning, and filled
Plaintiff's Tegretol prescription at 10:17 a.m., along
with several other inmate prescriptions. (See Dkt. #
65-37, Pg. ID 1027, 1029.) The medication was delivered to
the jail at approximately 11:05 a.m. on March 4, 2014.
(Id. at Pg. ID 1029.) The next medication pass in
the assessment area was to take place around 3:00 p.m. (Dkt.
# 65-26, Pg. ID 934.)

Plaintiff
was arraigned by video conferencing between 1:43 and 1:46
p.m. He was informed he could face up to life in prison as a
repeat offender, and his bond was set at $15, 000. While
making his 30-minute rounds at 2 p.m., [3] Deputy Walker
observed Plaintiff sitting by the phones next to 5 Cell.
(Dkt. # 65-23, Pg. ID 902; Dkt. # 65-20, Pg. ID 883-84.)
Deputy Walker asked Plaintiff if he was okay, and Plaintiff
responded “yes, my bond is just a lot[.]” (Dkt. #
65-23, Pg. ID 902.) Deputy Walker then returned to assessment
office work area. (Id.)

After
Deputy Walker returned to the officer work area, he noticed
Plaintiff stand up near the phone. Plaintiff “did not
appear to be acting normal” and looked like “he
was having a tough time maintaining his balance[.]”
(Dkt. # 65-23.) Deputy Walker then advised Plaintiff to have
a seat in the chairs in a front of a television used by
inmates in a carpeted portion of the assessment area, which
Plaintiff did. (Id.) Walker left the officer
workstation to attend to Plaintiff. (Id.)

Deputy
Walker then noticed that Plaintiff was sweating profusely and
not responding to questions, so he summoned medical staff.
(Id.) Plaintiff was also making involuntary
movements of his arms and head, and emitting a strange
scream. (Id.) Deputy Walker then grabbed
Plaintiff's shirt and supported his head. (Id.)
Video capturing part of the incident shows that that a second
officer arrived less than a minute after Deputy Walker left
the work station, with Defendant Sgt. Olejnik arriving 23
seconds later. Defendants Nurse Scheiman and Nurse King
arrive slightly more than 2 minutes after Deputy Walker first
left the workstation to attend to Plaintiff, approximately
2:04 p.m. (Id.)

Sgt.
Olejnik, Deputy Zuehlke, and Lt. Biondo all assisted to try
to control Plaintiff, who was seizing and thrashing about.
(Dkt. # 65-23.) According to the relevant nurse notes, Nurse
Schieman tried without success to bring Plaintiff out of his
seizure using ammonia, and was unable to take his vitals
because of his violent thrashing. (Dkt. # 65-25.) Nurse
Schieman decided that Plaintiff should be transported to the
hospital by ambulance, and one arrived at the jail at 2:15
p.m. (Dkt. # 65-23.) The deputies helped Tri Hospital EMS
personnel place Plaintiff on a stretcher, and he was
transported to the hospital. (Dkt. # 66-51.)

Plaintiff
was then diagnosed with a subarachnoid bleed in his brain. He
was hospitalized for a few weeks, lapsed into a coma, had
surgery to relieve the pressure on his brain, experienced
renal failure, and underwent additional surgery on his arm
for compartment syndrome. (Dkt. # 65, Pg. ID 692-93; DKt. #
80, Pg. ID 1822-23.)

II.
STANDARD

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Summary
judgment is proper &ldquo;if the movant shows that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.&rdquo; Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(a). &ldquo;In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the
court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to
the non-moving party, drawing all reasonable inferences in
that party&#39;s favor.&rdquo; Sagan v. United
States, 342 F.3d 493, 497 (6th Cir. 2003). The movant
has the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine
dispute as to a material fact. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). &ldquo;[T]hat burden
may be discharged by showing . . . that there is an absence
of evidence to support the nonmoving party&#39;s case.&rdquo;
Bennett v. City of Eastpointe, 410 F.3d 810, 817
(6th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.